Bibliographic record
Abstract
CENTRAL OKLAHOMA Margaret Morae Nice. In 1919 the best place to study birds near Our home was along Snail Brook, a sluggish little stream just west of Norman. On one of my visits in December I decided to make a special study of the most convenient stret~h, which I called the First Half Mile. At that time this tractt was a woods in miniature with primeval trees, a great deal of undergrowth, weeds, a cre~k and a small pond. bordered by a few acres of unbroken prairie and cultivated fields; at all seasons, cover, food and water were present in abundance. Hence this portion of Snail Brook was attractive at all times of the year and to a wide variety of birds. Moreover, it was comparatively isolattd, yet not too much; to the north, west and east there was no cover at all; but to the south the Second, Third and Fourth Half Miles stretching nearly to the woods by the South Canadian river, formed, with their trees and thi~kets, a natural avenue for many birds to travel up and down. For three years I carried out almost weekly censuses of the birds on the area selected, but by 1922 the region was becoming greatly injured through the inroad9 of civihzation. The pond had been drained in the spring of 1921 and a small houst' built on the prairie; the vegetation was not disturbed until the summer of 1922 when considerable cutting of trees and shrubbery took place. .After this more houses w~re built, more clearing dpne, while the best woods left was turned into a hog pasture, therefore in 1923 and 1924 I ceased my l'isits almost entirely. vVe were away from Norman from June 1924 to September 1925; on our return I found Snail Brook had regained some of its lost prestige, since the hogs had gone and their former home was a wilderness of weeds. Consequently I took up the study again. From December 1919 to Decembe. 1926 I made 210 censuses and 90 vishs; on a census I went along the ~tream the whole half mile recording every bird I saw, an a visit 1 only went partway. Since the trees and bushes merely borrlered the creek, it was possible to get fairly accurate counts as 10:Jg as the leaves were off; late spring, summer and early fall censuses were less accurate than the others. In December 1919 I made 2 censuses
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".